#Internet censorship in India

[richdadpoor]

Montana Compares Banned TikTok to 'Cancer-Causing Radio'

Montana’s lawsuit-hungry attorney general Austin Knudsen wants US courts to think of TikTok less like a light-hearted home for viral trends and more akin to the harbinger of a life-threatening disease. In recent court filings defending his state’s unprecedented ban on the short-form video app, Knudsen compared TikTok to a “cancer-causing radio,” something he said lawmakers would likewise have a…

[theculturedmarxist]

Maybe this has something to do with it

MARUTHONKARA, India: It was more than two weeks before doctors even realised what they were treating, the fourth outbreak in five years of the lethal, brain-swelling Nipah virus in India’s Kerala region. By then, hundreds of people had been exposed to the bat pathogen.

 Halting the disease’s spread required deploying an army of workers, who put this village and eight others on partial lockdown for two weeks, surveyed more than 53,000 houses for signs of illness and tracked down 1,200 people who had come into contact with infected patients, according to the World Health Organization.

Ultimately, six people were infected, and two of them died. Though Kerala’s response to contain the outbreak drew international praise, the quick spread of the virus and its impact on tens of thousands of people illustrate what many scientists and world health leaders say is a weakness in public health policy: relying solely on disease containment. Governments, they say, must also control land development and protect animal habitats in areas where there is high risk of pathogens leaping from animals to people, a phenomenon known as spillover.

[...]

Reporters compared ecological conditions across the globe from 2002 through 2020 with those that existed at the time of past spillovers, identifying 9 million sq km – covering 6% of the Earth’s land mass – where conditions were ripe for pathogens to jump from bats to humans. Nearly 1.8 billion people lived in those jump zones in 2020, an increase of 57% since 2002.

The analysis focused on bats because they are linked to many of the deadliest disease outbreaks of the past half century, including the recent Covid-19 pandemic. Though its specific source is still unknown, the virus that causes Covid-19 is related to coronaviruses found in some horseshoe bats, a type common in tropical Asia. Kerala is one of the likeliest places on earth for spillover to occur, the analysis showed.

[...]

Nipah, which comes from bats and causes a lethal, brain-swelling fever in humans, has been linked to the deaths of two dozen people in Kerala since its first, surprise appearance here in 2018. A 1998-1999 epidemic in Malaysia killed at least 105. Hundreds more have died in near-annual outbreaks in Bangladesh since 2001. Nipah is classified as a priority pathogen by the WHO because of its potential to trigger an epidemic. There is no vaccine to prevent infection and no treatment to cure it.

edit: I guess not if the ban is months old

seriously, what the fuck is this about?

they've just outright banned the tag for an indian state that's home to over 34 million people

[mehmetyildizmelbourne-blog]

Global Digital Divide: How App Bans on Facebook, WhatsApp, & TikTok Shape the Future of Online Connectivity

Written by Dr Michael Broadly, Retired Health Scientist and Public Health Consultant: Health Science Research Exploring the Impact of Social Media Restrictions on Billions for Balancing Security, Culture, and Access to Information in a Digitally Connected World We live on an exciting yet problematic planet where billions of people are connected, sharing stories, ideas, and moments in real-time,…

[metamatar]

Why do you always defend China like that? I mean I get the the world tries to do the red scare, but aren't you defending a nation state when you brush off every criticism? Or does the criticism like target things that hamper capitalists and the actual criticisms regarding China lie elsewhere?

"Always?" All I said India is worse than China on a reblog about censorship on the Monkey Man lmao. There's stuff on my blog this year critiquing: Chinese uselessness on Palestine, involvement in Congo and critiquing workers rights in China through the lens of Foxconn factories trying to replicate their model in India.

I'm getting accused of campism for saying that India's blood and soil fascism is way worse, more dangerous than Chinese high surveillance 'socialism with Chinese characteristics.' India is formenting religious pogroms. The average Chinese citizen is not lynching their neighbours and burning down their homes on suspicion of eating the wrong thing. For Netflix to distort and kowtow to rabid fascists when the United States is strengthening ties with India (for anti China reasons) is really dangerous, given how much influence organisations like the Hindu American Foundation have in US politics. The average Westerner hates China plenty. Liberals do however cluelessly support Indian origin politicians who are funded by the Sangh.

Look man. I'm Indian. India has, since the BJP came to power gotten worse on hunger indexes every year. For countries not at war, we have the highest rate of child hunger in the world: 1 in 5 children are wasting despite the economy growing 6% every year. Journalists are routinely jailed and die in there. Kashmir is still under curfew and internet blackouts. Whatever hysterical story you want to tell about China is reality in India too. Without any kind of economic prosperity.

Why do these lives not matter to you? Why does the fact that Indian govt is passing laws that would enable India to strip muslims of citizenship not seem urgent to you? Is it because you maybe only think that the lives of people only matter in so far as they can be weaponised in some kind of story aligning with american state department?

[misalpav]

I think in light of recent events, it should come to attention for a lot more people that the western education system needs MASSIVE upheaval especially in the social sciences. "World history", as taught in the United States (because that's where I live and is the system I know best, but from what I've seen, most of the west is like this) is just a ruse at best to focus on Eurocentric history for 7 months and spend the 8th and 9th touching on literally everywhere else. Before anyone says it, no it's not because European history is more relevant to America because the parts of European history that are relevant to the USA are touched on extensively through the almost 3-4 years of US specific history classes I had. Meanwhile, real conflict that actually does affect our daily life because of internet and social media like Israel/Palestine, Russia/Ukraine, China/Taiwan, etc. were never mentioned and we were left shocked as those events transpired and rushed to learn about those histories.

I'm an Indian and a Hindu, so on that front I will also go ahead and say to America: what the absolute fuck? You had absolutely no qualms while teaching the practice of jauhar but couldn't mention that it was an act of desperation by women to salvage their dignity from the Muslim terrorists that wouldn't have wasted a second to r*pe or capture them. You went ahead and taught how Shah Jahan built the Taj Mahal because he was upset his wife died but failed to mention the countless native people he killed and temples he desecrated. But you could never mention the native Hindu temples in India that stump modern architects? You could mention Aurangzeb and the Delhi Sultanate but not Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj or Rani Rudramadevi because, according to you, the only important things that happened in India were the Muslim and British imperialists right? Then you wonder why, as a society, we struggle with hinduphobia and terrorist groups like the D*tbusters were given the confidence to exist but I don't actually think it's that surprising considering the narrative taught to children as early as middle and high school. Obviously, this narrative also expands to the countless other minorities that have their histories skewed like this, enabling continued bigotry. I think it's absolutely horrendous how the president of Harvard was able to say "it depends on the context" when it came to punishing antisemitism and still stay as faculty at the university with her high 6 figure salary. That kind of bullshit so high up in our educational structures is exactly what keeps fucking us over.

No, I'm not saying you need to go into the details for everything in the world either because that would be impossible, but what I am saying is history can and should be more equitable. In the United States, you can and should teach American history in detail and I have no issues with that (except for how "American history" itself is being watered down by politics and censorship but that's a whole other conversation), but I think 3 centuries after America got independence from the British, the fact that Henry VIII created a church j so he could divorce his first wife is just so unnecessary when people can't even distinguish the fact that Jesus was a Jew and Judaism is one of the oldest surviving religions and then use false information to hurl insults at the Jew community.

Obviously, a lot of what I said was addressed to America, but that definitely does not give the rest of the West a free pass.

[mariacallous]

TikTok’s day of reckoning in the US has arrived. On Friday, the United States Supreme Court will hear the company’s appeal against its slated nationwide ban, which could come into force in a little more than a week if the company’s efforts fail.

The social video app, which is owned by Chinese firm ByteDance and is used by around 170 million Americans, has been appealing the ban since US president Joe Biden signed the law underpinning it last year. The Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) states that ByteDance must sell TikTok’s US business to a non-Chinese company by January 19—no buyer has yet been found—or see the app blocked in the US. Donald Trump, who retakes the White House on January 20, publicly originated the idea that ByteDance be forced to sell TikTok during his first presidential term but has since reversed course.

The Supreme Court, which is hearing the case quickly due to the impending deadline and following a federal court upholding the ban in December, will determine whether the US Constitution’s First Amendment right to free speech is overruled by the government’s belief that TikTok is a threat to US national security. Proponents of PAFACA claim TikTok’s Chinese ownership could allow China to steal data on Americans and spread disinformation—although little evidence has been presented to support those claims, which the company denies.

If the court allows the ban to go ahead—and Trump doesn’t find a way to stop it—the move will be an unprecedented technological clampdown in the country.

“This is the first time we’ve seen a national-level ban that appears imminent in the United States,” says Joseph Lorenzo Hall, a distinguished technologist at the Internet Society. TikTok has been banned or faces lawsuits in other countries, such as India, and the pressures come against the backdrop of total internet shutdowns and increased online censorship. ��What we learned from all of those is that this ends up really hurting the people of the country, that the economic effects are immediate for people,” Hall says.

So, how would TikTok actually be banned?

App Stores, Hosting Providers

Unpicking TikTok from the nation’s consciousness—thousands of influencers and businesses use the app to make money and promote themselves—is not exactly straightforward. Nor is it simple to untangle the company from US-based internet infrastructure.

PAFACA doesn’t require anyone to uninstall TikTok from their phones. It also doesn’t say TikTok should directly stop its services from working in the US. Instead, it effectively tries to throttle TikTok by making it harder to use over time and by stopping companies from providing services that help it to keep working and quickly loading videos.

TikTok, as with all companies mentioned in this story, did not respond to WIRED’s request for comment and hasn’t, at this stage, outlined what technical steps it will or will not take if the ban does eventually come into place.

The law says it will be “unlawful” for entities to “distribute, maintain or update” the app including its source code, or by “providing services” that allow it to keep running as it is now. This distribution, maintenance, or updates could be, the law says, by means of mobile app stores that can be accessed in the US or by “providing internet hosting services.”

“The law really deliberately avoided saying that it was illegal to have the app on your phone,” says Milton Mueller, a professor and cofounder of the Internet Governance Project at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in opposition of the ban. “Their attempt is to say nobody new can download it from the Apple or Google stores, and nobody who has it can update it through those stores,” Mueller says. “There’s nothing in the law that says ‘TikTok you must block US users,’ which is again interesting.”

If TikTok is removed from Apple’s App Store and Google’s Play Store in the US, it will not be possible to directly install new updates that will add new features, fix bugs within the code, or quash security flaws. Over time, that means TikTok will stop functioning properly. Apple didn’t respond to WIRED’s request for comment, while Google declined to comment on what it will do if the law comes into effect.

The law’s other focus is on stopping “hosting” companies from providing services to TikTok—and the definition is pretty wide. Hosting companies “may include file hosting, domain name server hosting, cloud hosting, and virtual private server hosting,” the law says. Since the summer of 2022, as TikTok faced pressure about its Chinese ownership, the company has hosted US user data within Oracle’s cloud services. Oracle also did not respond to WIRED’s request for comment.

Even so, other systems such as content delivery networks, advertising networks, payment providers, and more are used as part of TikTok’s infrastructure. The law does not specifically mention these services, but differing legal readings could make them question whether they help to “maintain” or “distribute” TikTok’s fully functioning service.

Hall says a recent test of TikTok’s website showed 185 embedded domains on the page. “They pull in code, content from that array of third-party providers and their own domains too,” he says. “The apps will start to decay and rot as either services stop working, things like content distribution networks or services who feel like they can't take the risks of the ambiguous nature of the language or the potential enforcement by the incoming administration.”

There’s one internet infrastructure player that the ban does not specifically put pressure on: internet service providers. Countries such as Russia and China have developed censorship measures that allow them to block entire websites from being accessed through web bowsers. Mueller believes this omission by US lawmakers was likely deliberate, as it avoids setting up a Chinese-style internet firewall. “They knew that a system of ISP-based blocking and filtering would obviously be a form of First Amendment restriction,” he says.

Avoiding a TikTok Ban

While TikTok’s service in the US would likely degrade over time, there remain some potential ways around any ban—both for individuals and potentially also the company itself. How effective these measures would be likely depends on how motivated people are to keep using TikTok and what the company decides to do.

“TikTok has 170 million users,” says Alan Rozenshtein, an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota, who is in favor of the law but says it is the “best of a bunch of bad options” relating to TikTok. “This law will not prevent every one of them from accessing TikTok. I don’t think that was ever the goal of the law. The law is to make it meaningfully harder to access TikTok.”

Theoretically, at least, TikTok could shift its services providers—such as hosting companies or content delivery networks—to be based outside of the United States. Using technical infrastructure based abroad, for instance in Europe, could allow TikTok to be served to people in the US while operating within the bounds of the law.

While skirting the full-blown ban would allow people in the US to continue to use the app, that doesn’t mean the experience will be good. If videos are served from international locations, for example, load times may be slower for users, and it may be harder to upload videos. Using TikTok’s website isn’t the same experience as what the app provides, either. And that all depends on such a setup being possible at all.

“I do think that the number of companies that can do that, that are not headquartered in the US, is going to be small, especially considering how hard it is to switch from one cloud provider to another,” Hall says. “It’s really difficult depending on a number of factors.” Aside from technical challenges, international companies may not be willing to risk flying in the face of US restrictions, particularly under an aggressive Trump administration that has already threatened Greenland and economic penalties on other countries.

A TikTok ban would almost guarantee a spike in searches and downloads of virtual private networks (VPNs), which allow people to appear as if they are in a different geographic location to get around restrictions on content—for instance, trying to watch Netflix while abroad. Using a VPN within the US may allow the TikTok app to keep working, although it is unclear whether the company will place any restrictions on users it can determine are in the US by other means. The company’s support pages say SIM card registration details and other information can be used to pinpoint someone’s location.

Alternatively, it is likely Android users could download versions of TikTok outside of Google’s Play Store and install them on their devices. However, sideloading like this can come with security risks if the apps are not verified, and doing the same on an iPhone, via jailbreaking the device, is more technically complex.

Equally, moves such as changing locations of app stores to be outside of the US may come with unforeseen consequences and prove harder to maintain for general users in the long term. For instance, if you are changing an iCloud account’s location, Apple advises that you may need to cancel subscriptions and have a valid payment method for the location you are changing it to.

Prateek Waghre, a technology policy researcher based in India, where TikTok has been banned for four years and, despite an influx of some homegrown competitors, largely saw people move to Instagram Reels or YouTube’s Shorts, says overall restrictions on apps and websites weakens people’s experiences online and damages the internet as a whole.

“For many of us, [it is] the realization of one of our fears of a ‘splinternet,’” Waghre says. “You will have different kinds of access based on different geography, which is not what the experience of the internet was.”

[fairyboygenius]

welcome! 🎀🤍

maisie. 20s. she/they. college student/english major. virgo sun, aries moon, capricorn rising. fat white autistic lesbian. chronically ill. on semester at sea, currently heading to: india!!

i mainly write for call of duty characters! things i might also talk about: taylor swift, chappell roan, boygenius, hozier, noah kahan, snoopy, social issues, my mental illnesses, and just general shitposting. (more below the cut)

favorite cod characters: the 141 especially ghost and gaz, farah, laswell, valeria, occasionally nikolai or barrage but that’s extremely rare. i’ve never actually played the games so if you have any hot women you think i’d like please send them to me

my asks are open! please send me things i beg of you i am yearning to read whatever you have to say

pairings i love: ghoap, ghostprice, ghostgaz, poly 141

i do write: x reader, x OC, slash, poly, fluff, angst, smut, hurt/comfort, some dark topics (everything will be tagged religiously and if i miss something please let me know!)

i am too empathetic/traumatized to read lots of dark fics but i genuinely do not care what you do as long as it’s properly tagged so survivors like myself can choose what to interact with. i do, however, see the ways in which being anti-dark fic is a slippery slope when it comes to censorship. i don’t tolerate puritanism (actual puritanism, not criticism of dark fic). you are responsible for your own consumption. that being said, a “misogyny kink” is just thinly veiled tradwife content and i don’t fuck with that

i don’t write: any character not mentioned in my favorites (sorry to any könig or graves stans following me), rape/non-con, unnegotiated kink, underage, bodily fluid play, pregnancy/kids content, breeding kink, cheating, bigotry of any kind

i unequivocally disagree with the use of generative AI in fandom because of how it harms both artists and the environment massively. if you are a user of AI chat bots (including character.ai), AI art generators, or anything else made by generative AI, do not follow me or interact with my blog. if i find out one of you is using generative AI, you will be blocked.

i block freely and often (i’ve been on the internet since i was 10, i’ve seen some shit). things that will 100% get you blocked:

if you’re a minor/ageless blog/blank blog

ANY KIND OF BIGOTRY- racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, fat phobia, ableism, classism, islamophobia, antisemitism. i have a zero tolerance policy for that shit on my page and my dash

zionists- in this house we believe in a free palestine! down with the apartheid state (anti zionism is not antisemitism don’t pmo)

“constructive criticism”/ telling me how to write my fics

harassing me or my mutuals

AI chat bot users/creators (see above)

everywhere, everything masterlist

AO3 profile

[comeonamericawakeup]

U.S. internet giants like Google and Facebook have long since abandoned doing business in China, said Ryan Gallagher. Not Microsoft. Since 2009, it has "continued to run a local version of Bing in compliance with Beijing's censorship requirements." Last year, Bing even briefly overtook Baidu as China's top desktop search engine. Part of the reason for Microsoft's reluctance to leave China is its wealth of “technical talent.” China-based engineers are allowed to work on Microsoft's advanced Al projects, even though they are banned in China. But access to that talent is coming at the expense of internet freedoms. Microsoft has overseen "an expanding blacklist of thousands of websites, words, and phrases," covering everything from human rights to climate change. Terms such as "Communist Party corruption" or any references to "tank man" or the "Tiananmen Square massacre" are also on the blacklist. Searches for information about abuses of the Uighur population yield only "state media reports that deny" them. Other countries, such as India and Russia, "seeking to shut their populations off from politically inconvenient information" have taken note, and have started to ask Microsoft to take content off its search engine. Employees say "Microsoft has often complied," setting the stage for more censorship to come.

[arthropooda]

TWO MONTHS AFTER teaming up with the Indian government to censor a BBC documentary on human rights abuses by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Twitter is yet again collaborating with India to impose an extraordinarily broad crackdown on speech.

Last week, the Indian government imposed an internet blackout across the northern state of Punjab, home to 30 million people, as it conducted a manhunt for a local Sikh nationalist leader, Amritpal Singh. The shutdown paralyzed internet and SMS communications in Punjab (some Indian users told The Intercept that the shutdown was targeted at mobile devices).

While Punjab police detained hundreds of suspected followers of Singh, Twitter accounts from over 100 prominent politicians, activists, and journalists in India and abroad have been blocked in India at the request of the government.

[shinylyni]

Look I understand the sentiment of "what will China even use our information for", and you're right, for the average person who lives outside of China there really isn't anything about your information being sold/used in China that's oh so different from your information being sold/used in the US, or Japan, or India, or anywhere else in the world.

But like. My family has been repeatedly targeted by the CCP for literally decades now. Even if I live in the States, I have close family members in mainland China who have been and continue to be targeted by the CCP. "What will China even use your information for"? The Chinese government can and will use anything I post online to target the people closest to me and take absolute glee in doing so.

And yeah not everything on the Internet is about me yadda yadda but that's why this is on my personal blog. It's a vent for myself and the people who know me and follow me and know my history.

So, no, I don't support TikTok. But even more than that, I also don't support the US banning a social media website or literally any website at all. Just because I personally have beef with TikTok and the CCP, has nothing to do with the fact that what the US government is trying to do is racist, sinophobic, and absolutely a form of censorship. And I'll clench my jaws and ball my hands into fists because I believe our government, the one I live under, should not have the right to declare where and how we get our information, and they should not have the authority to outright ban content from another country.

[gracevisiontv]

Global Television Network: Connecting the World Through Broadcasts

In an increasingly interconnected world, the concept of a Global Television Network has become a vital part of how we consume media, stay informed, and connect with cultures across the globe. These networks span continents, offering diverse content ranging from news and entertainment to educational programming and sports. But what exactly is a global television network, and how has it reshaped the way we interact with the world?

What is a Global Television Network?

A Global Television Network refers to a television channel or media platform that broadcasts content to multiple countries, often with programming tailored to international audiences. Unlike national broadcasters that serve local or regional markets, global television networks have a far-reaching impact, broadcasting in multiple languages and catering to diverse cultural contexts.

These networks usually deliver content via satellite, cable, or digital platforms, ensuring their reach spans across borders. Popular examples of global television networks include BBC World News, CNN, Al Jazeera English, and Discovery Channel. They are often seen as platforms for global news, international events, and cultural exchange.

The Role of Global Television Networks in News and Information

One of the most prominent functions of global television networks is their role in disseminatingglobal news. With international stories often unfolding in real time, these networks provide audiences with up-to-the-minute reports, ensuring that people from different countries remain informed about major events, crises, and developments. For instance, during a natural disaster or political upheaval, global television networks often provide live coverage, interviews with experts, and analysis, shaping the global conversation.

Through their comprehensive coverage, these networks have the power to influence public opinion, diplomatic relations, and policy-making. The global nature of their reach means that news stories can spark discussions in multiple nations, leading to international awareness and collaboration.

Cultural Exchange and Global Understanding

Beyond the realm of news, global television networks also serve as powerful tools for cultural exchange. Through documentaries, television shows, and films, audiences are exposed to different ways of life, traditions, and values that they might not otherwise encounter. For example, a documentary on the traditional arts of India can introduce Western audiences to the rich heritage of South Asia, while a cooking show might reveal the flavors and recipes of Italy to viewers in Japan.

Such content helps bridge cultural gaps, fostering empathy and understanding between people of different nations. In an era of increasing globalization, global television networks are integral in promoting cross-cultural communication and unity.

The Impact of Technology on Global Television Networks

Technology has played a pivotal role in the growth and evolution of global television networks. With the rise of the internet, many global networks have shifted from traditional satellite broadcasting to online streaming platforms. This transition has allowed them to reach even wider audiences, as viewers can now access their content on-demand through websites, apps, and social media platforms.

Additionally, the use of high-definition (HD) and 4K broadcasting has enhanced the visual experience, while advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and data analytics allow networks to offer personalized content recommendations. These technological innovations have made global television networks more accessible and user-friendly, catering to a modern, tech-savvy audience.

Challenges Faced by Global Television Networks

While global television networks offer countless benefits, they also face unique challenges. Censorship and content regulation remain significant hurdles, particularly when broadcasting in countries with strict media controls. For example, a news story or documentary that is deemed politically sensitive may be banned or altered to comply with local regulations.

Additionally, networks must contend with the challenge of localization—adapting content to suit the preferences, language, and cultural nuances of various countries. This may involve translating content into multiple languages, adjusting programming schedules, or tailoring advertising to local tastes.

For more info:-

Streaming Local Tv Channels

Live Stream Platforms

[eeyc]

🔴 Países que ya tienen implementado algún tipo de control de acceso a Internet o lo están preparando para los próximos meses...

🇩🇪 Alemania

🇬🇧 Reino Unido

🇫🇷 Francia

🇺🇸 Estados Unidos (varios estados como Arkansas, Texas, Utah y Virginia)

🇨🇦 Canadá

🇦🇺 Australia

🇨🇳 China

🇮🇳 India

🇸🇦 Arabia Saudita

🇮🇷 Irán

🇦🇪 Emiratos Árabes Unidos

🇻🇳 Vietnam

🇹🇷 Turquía

🇷🇺 Rusia

🇺🇦 Ucrania

🇻🇪 Venezuela

🇪🇸 España

🇱🇹 Lituania

🇧🇾 Bielorrusia

🇵🇰 Pakistán

🇲🇲 Myanmar

🇮🇶 Irak

🇹🇲 Turkmenistán

🇨🇺 Cuba

🇬🇹 Guatemala

🇭🇳 Honduras

🇳🇮 Nicaragua

🇪🇬 Egipto

🇸🇩 Sudán

🇹🇿 Tanzania

🇺🇬 Uganda

🇧🇼 Botsuana

🇧🇫 Burkina Faso

🇬🇶 Guinea Ecuatorial

🇪🇷 Eritrea

Múltiples fuentes:

https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/internet-censorship-map/

https://nordvpn.com/blog/internet-censorship-explained/

https://freedomhouse.org/article/new-report-global-battle-over-internet-regulation-has-major-implications-human-rights

https://english.elpais.com/society/2023-04-23/is-it-possible-to-regulate-porn-spain-ponders-how-to-keep-adult-content-away-from-kids.html

https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/internet-censorship-map/

[brokeshibe]

I mean, if you put aside the jokes...this is pretty concerning.

If a government censored every action which contradicted it's leader, it would be considered generally "not great" to say the least. The fact we accept this as not only acceptable and legal but in fact some encourage this when it's done by a billionaire with potentially as much influence as the government of a nation state, is really...not good...

This is just setting the potential for massive amounts of misinformation on the internet, which is entirely based on whatever a few individuals who are richer than god believe based on whatever youtube channel they watched last.

Imagine if instead of Elon Musk buying twitter, it was the guy who died in his poorly designed submarine? If every kind of criticism of his work was erased from the internet, while also amplifying his own beliefs about what does or doesn't work, drowning out the voices of actual experts in the field.

It's no different to that, except Elon Musk didn't die in a submarine at the bottom of the ocean - he's just turned one of the largest social media websites into his own ticking implosion submarine, except the repercussions of that are going to be a lot greater, when you consider that he allows widespread censorship by e.g. the nationalist Hindutva government in India, encourages misinformation about the global pandemic that has only very recently been downgraded by the WHO, etc.

3 hours, 37 minutes

[credenceresearchdotblog]

The global demand for OTT services was valued at USD 202154.5 million in 2022 and is expected to reach USD 700206.52 million in 2030, growing at a CAGR of 16.80% between 2023 and 2030.The Over-the-Top (OTT) services market has undergone a transformative journey over the past decade, revolutionizing how consumers access and consume content. With its meteoric rise, OTT services have disrupted traditional broadcasting and cable TV models, offering unparalleled convenience, variety, and affordability. This article delves into the current state of the OTT market, its driving forces, challenges, and future prospects.

Browse the full report at https://www.credenceresearch.com/report/ott-services-market

Growth Trajectory

OTT services, which deliver content via the internet directly to viewers, bypassing traditional distribution channels, have seen exponential growth. Major players like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Hulu, and Disney+ have become household names, setting new standards for entertainment. According to industry reports, the global OTT market was valued at approximately $121.61 billion in 2021 and is projected to reach $1.039 trillion by 2027, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.3%.

Key Drivers of Growth

Several factors contribute to the booming OTT market:

1. Internet Penetration and Smartphone Adoption: The proliferation of high-speed internet and affordable smartphones has expanded access to OTT platforms. With more people connected than ever before, OTT services can reach a global audience.

2. Content Variety and Personalization: OTT platforms offer a vast library of content, ranging from movies and TV shows to documentaries and live sports. Advanced algorithms personalize recommendations, enhancing user engagement and satisfaction.

3. Flexibility and Convenience: Unlike traditional TV, OTT services provide on-demand content, allowing users to watch their favorite shows anytime, anywhere. This flexibility has made OTT platforms particularly popular among younger audiences.

4. Cost-Effectiveness: OTT subscriptions are generally more affordable than cable TV packages. Additionally, the absence of long-term contracts and the availability of free ad-supported options have made OTT services accessible to a broader audience.

Challenges Facing the OTT Market

Despite its rapid growth, the OTT market faces several challenges:

1. Content Saturation and Competition: With the influx of new entrants, the market is becoming increasingly saturated. Established players must continuously innovate and invest in original content to retain subscribers and stay ahead of the competition.

2. Piracy and Copyright Issues: The digital nature of OTT content makes it vulnerable to piracy. Protecting intellectual property and ensuring content security are critical concerns for service providers.

3. Regulatory Hurdles: Different countries have varying regulations regarding content distribution and censorship. Navigating these regulatory landscapes can be complex and may impact the availability of certain content.

4. Monetization and Profitability: While subscription models are popular, ad-supported models are also gaining traction. Balancing user experience with ad revenue and exploring new monetization strategies are ongoing challenges for OTT providers.

Regional Insights

The OTT market shows varying trends across different regions:

1. North America: The North American market, led by the United States, is the most mature. High disposable income, advanced infrastructure, and a strong preference for digital entertainment contribute to its dominance.

2. Asia-Pacific: This region is witnessing the fastest growth, driven by countries like India and China. Increasing internet penetration, a young population, and a growing middle class are propelling the demand for OTT services.

3. Europe: The European market is characterized by a diverse linguistic and cultural landscape. Local content production and strategic partnerships are crucial for OTT providers to cater to regional preferences.

4. Latin America and Africa: These regions present significant growth opportunities due to improving internet infrastructure and a burgeoning appetite for digital content. However, economic challenges and lower disposable incomes may pose barriers to widespread adoption.

The Future of OTT Services

The future of the OTT market looks promising, with several trends shaping its trajectory:

1. Technological Advancements: Emerging technologies like 5G, artificial intelligence, and virtual reality are set to enhance the OTT experience. Faster internet speeds and improved streaming quality will further drive user engagement.

2. Original Content Production: To stand out in a crowded market, OTT providers are increasingly investing in original content. High-quality, exclusive content will be a key differentiator in attracting and retaining subscribers.

3. Hybrid Models: The future may see a blend of subscription-based and ad-supported models, offering users more choices while maximizing revenue streams for providers.

4. Global Expansion: OTT platforms will continue to expand their global footprint, tapping into untapped markets and catering to diverse audiences with localized content and strategic partnerships.

Key Players

Google LLC (U.S.)

Apple Inc. (U.S.)

Amazon.com, Inc. (U.S.)

AT&T Intellectual Property. (U.S.)

STAR (India)

Twitter, Inc. (U.S.)

Hulu, LLC (U.S.)

Comcast (U.S.)

BT (U.K.)

Cox Communications, Inc. (U.S.)

Facebook (U.S.)

Verizon Media (U.S.)

TalkTalk TV Entertainment Limited (U.K.)

Deutsche Telekom AG (Germany)

Akamai Technologies (U.S.)

Fandango (U.S.)

Snagfilms Inc. (U.S.)

iNDIEFLIX Group Inc. (U.S.)

Xperi (U.S.)

Crackle, Inc. (U.S.)

Brightcove Inc. (U.S.)

Others

Segmentation

By Content Types

Video Streaming Services:

Subscription Video-On-Demand (SVOD)

Ad-Supported Video-On-Demand (AVOD)

Transaction Video-On-Demand (TVOD)

Live TV Streaming Services

Music Streaming Services

Gaming Services

E-books and Audiobooks

News and Magazines

Educational Content

Sports Streaming

By Distribution Models

Standalone OTT Services

OTT Services from Traditional Media Companies

Bundled Services

OTT Aggregators

OTT White-Label Solutions

OTT Advertising Platforms

By User Devices

Smart TVs

Streaming Devices

Computers and Laptops

Mobile Devices

Gaming Consoles

Set-Top Boxes

Smart Speakers and Voice Assistants

By Business Models

Subscription-based Services

Advertising-based Services

Transactional Services

Freemium Models

By Region

North America

The US.

Canada

Mexico

Europe

Germany

France

The U.K.

Italy

Spain

Rest of Europe

Asia Pacific

China

Japan

India

South Korea

South-east Asia

Rest of Asia Pacific

Latin America

Brazil

Argentina

Rest of Latin America

Middle East & Africa

GCC Countries

South Africa

Browse the full report at https://www.credenceresearch.com/report/ott-services-market

About Us:

Credence Research is committed to employee well-being and productivity. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, we have implemented a permanent work-from-home policy for all employees.

Contact:

Credence Research

Please contact us at +91 6232 49 3207

Email: sales@credenceresearch.com

Website: www.credenceresearch.com

[infograins]

The Future of Web: Exploring Web 3.0 Development

 As the digital landscape continues to evolve, Web 3.0, also known as Web 3, represents the next frontier in internet development. It promises to transform how we interact with the digital world, offering enhanced security, privacy, and decentralized control. At Infograins, one of the leading Web 3 development company in India, we are at the forefront of this revolution, driving innovation with cutting-edge Web 3.0, blockchain development, and NFT solutions. In this comprehensive blog, we will explore what Web 3.0 entails, its significance, and how it can revolutionize various industries.

What is Web 3.0?

Web 3.0 is often described as the "semantic web," where data is interconnected, contextualized, and intelligently processed to provide a more personalized and intuitive user experience. Unlike its predecessors—Web 1.0 (the static web) and Web 2.0 (the social web)—Web 3.0 emphasizes decentralization, transparency, and user control.

Key Characteristics of Web 3.0

Decentralization: Unlike Web 2.0, which relies heavily on centralized servers and platforms, Web 3.0 leverages decentralized networks and blockchain technology. This decentralization ensures that no single entity has control over the entire network, enhancing security and reducing the risk of censorship.

Semantic Understanding: Web 3.0 utilizes semantic technology to understand the context and meaning of data. This allows for more accurate search results, personalized recommendations, and a more intuitive browsing experience.

User Empowerment: Web 3.0 gives users greater control over their data and digital identities. Through decentralized applications (DApps) and blockchain technology, users can manage their data, privacy, and online interactions with greater autonomy.

Interoperability: Web 3.0 promotes seamless interaction between different platforms and applications. This interoperability ensures that data and services can be easily shared and integrated across various ecosystems.

Enhanced Security: With the use of blockchain technology, Web 3.0 offers increased security through cryptographic protocols and decentralized consensus mechanisms. This reduces the risk of data breaches and cyberattacks.

The Role of Blockchain in Web 3.0

Blockchain technology is the backbone of Web 3.0, providing the infrastructure for decentralization and transparency. Here’s how blockchain plays a pivotal role in Web 3.0 development:

Decentralized Networks

Blockchain enables the creation of decentralized networks where data is distributed across multiple nodes rather than being stored on a central server. This decentralization enhances security, reduces the risk of single points of failure, and ensures that control is distributed among multiple participants.

Smart Contracts

Smart contracts are self-executing contracts with predefined rules and conditions. They run on blockchain networks and automatically enforce and execute agreements without the need for intermediaries. Smart contracts are fundamental to Web 3.0, enabling trustless transactions and interactions within decentralized applications (DApps).

Data Ownership and Privacy

In Web 3.0, users have ownership of their data through blockchain technology. Instead of relinquishing control to centralized platforms, users can store and manage their data securely on the blockchain. This ensures privacy and empowers individuals to make informed decisions about how their data is used and shared.

Tokenization and NFTs

Tokenization involves converting real-world assets or digital goods into blockchain-based tokens. Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) are a prominent example of tokenization in Web 3.0. NFTs represent unique digital assets, such as art, collectibles, and virtual goods, providing a decentralized and verifiable ownership structure.

How Web 3.0 is Transforming Industries

Web 3.0 has the potential to revolutionize various industries by introducing new paradigms of decentralization, transparency, and user empowerment. Here’s how different sectors are being impacted:

Finance and Banking

The traditional financial system is undergoing a transformation with the advent of decentralized finance (DeFi). DeFi leverages blockchain technology to provide financial services such as lending, borrowing, and trading without the need for intermediaries. This democratizes access to financial services and reduces costs for users.

Supply Chain Management

Blockchain technology is being used to enhance transparency and traceability in supply chains. By recording every transaction on an immutable ledger, businesses can track the movement of goods, verify authenticity, and ensure ethical practices throughout the supply chain.

Healthcare

In the healthcare sector, Web 3.0 can improve data security, interoperability, and patient control. Blockchain-based health records ensure that patient data is secure and accessible only to authorized individuals. Additionally, decentralized health platforms can facilitate secure and transparent clinical trials and research.

Digital Identity and Privacy

Web 3.0 offers a new approach to digital identity management. Through decentralized identity solutions, individuals can have control over their digital identities and share personal information selectively. This reduces the risk of identity theft and enhances privacy.

Gaming and Entertainment

The gaming and entertainment industry is experiencing a shift with the introduction of blockchain-based games and NFTs. Gamers can own in-game assets as NFTs, trade them on decentralized marketplaces, and participate in play-to-earn models. This creates new revenue streams and enhances user engagement.

Infograins: Leading the Way in Web 3.0 Development

At Infograins, we are committed to transforming your business with cutting-edge Web 3.0, blockchain development, and NFT solutions. As one of the leading Web 3 development companies in India, we offer a range of services to help you leverage the power of Web 3.0 technology:

Blockchain Development

Our team specializes in developing secure and scalable blockchain solutions for various industries. We create customized blockchain platforms, smart contracts, and decentralized applications (DApps) to meet your specific business needs.

NFT Solutions

We offer comprehensive NFT solutions, including the creation, deployment, and management of non-fungible tokens. Whether you’re looking to launch a new NFT project or integrate NFTs into your existing platform, our experts can guide you through the process.

Web 3.0 Consulting

Our Web 3.0 consulting services help businesses navigate the complexities of the decentralized web. We provide strategic guidance on blockchain adoption, decentralized finance, and digital identity solutions to ensure a successful transition to Web 3.0.

Custom DApp Development

We develop custom decentralized applications (DApps) tailored to your business requirements. Our DApps leverage blockchain technology to provide secure, transparent, and efficient solutions for various use cases.

Integration and Support

We offer integration and support services to ensure that your Web 3.0 solutions function seamlessly with your existing systems. Our team provides ongoing maintenance and support to keep your applications running smoothly.

Conclusion

Web 3.0 represents a transformative shift in how we interact with the digital world. By embracing decentralization, transparency, and user empowerment, Web 3.0 promises to revolutionize various industries and create new opportunities for innovation. At Infograins, we are dedicated to leading the charge in Web 3.0 development, offering cutting-edge blockchain solutions, NFT expertise, and consulting services to help you navigate this exciting frontier.

If you’re ready to explore the possibilities of Web 3.0 and transform your business with advanced technology, contact us today. Let’s embark on this journey together and unlock the full potential of the decentralized web.

[mariacallous]

It no longer makes sense to speak of free speech in traditional terms. The internet has so transformed the nature of the speaker that the definition of speech itself has changed.

The new speech is governed by the allocation of virality. People cannot simply speak for themselves, for there is always a mysterious algorithm in the room that has independently set the volume of the speaker’s voice. If one is to be heard, one must speak in part to one’s human audience, in part to the algorithm. It is as if the US Constitution had required citizens to speak through actors or lawyers who answered to the Dutch East India Company, or some other large remote entity. What power should these intermediaries have? When the very logic of speech must shift in order for people to be heard, is that still free speech? This was not a problem foreseen in the law.

The time may be right for a legal and policy reset. US lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are questioning Section 230, the liability shield that enshrined the ad-driven internet. The self-reinforcing ramifications of a mere 26 words—“no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”—has produced a social media ecosystem that is widely held to have had deleterious effects on both democracy and mental health.

Abraham Lincoln is credited with the famous quip about how you cannot fool all the people all the time. Perhaps you cannot, but perhaps the internet can. Imperfect speech has always existed, but the means and scale of amplification have not. The old situation cannot be the guide for the new.

Section 230 was created during a period when policy was being designed to unleash internet innovation, thereby maintaining America’s competitive edge in cyberspace. The early internet was supported by a variety of friendly policies, not just Section 230. For instance, sales arranged over the internet were often not taxed in early years. Furthermore, the internet was knowingly inaugurated in an incomplete state, lacking personal accounts, authentication mechanisms, commercial transaction standards, and many other needed elements. The thinking was not only that it was easier to get a minimal design started when computing power was still nascent, but also that the missing elements would be addressed by entrepreneurs. In effect, we were giving trillion-dollar gifts to parties unknown who would be the inevitable network-effect winners.

Section 230 was enacted as part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a larger legislative effort within the umbrella 1996 Telecommunications Act. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity for online services regarding user-generated content, ensuring the companies hosting content are not treated as publishers of this information. Section 230(c)(2) offers Good Samaritan protection from civil liability when the companies—or platforms, as we call them today—in good faith remove or moderate objectionable content.

After President Bill Clinton signed the 1996 Telecommunications Act into law, it was unclear how the courts might interpret it. When the dust cleared, Section 230 emerged as something of a double-edged sword. It could be used to justify censorship, and at the same time be deployed as a corporate liability shield. Most importantly, it provided the runway for the takeoff of Google, Twitter, and Facebook. (And now TikTok—which, being a Chinese company, proves that Section 230 no longer serves American interests.)

The impact on the public sphere has been, to say the least, substantial. In removing so much liability, Section 230 forced a certain sort of business plan into prominence, one based not on uniquely available information from a given service, but on the paid arbitration of access and influence. Thus, we ended up with the deceptively named “advertising” business model—and a whole society thrust into a 24/7 competition for attention. A polarized social media ecosystem. Recommender algorithms that mediate content and optimize for engagement. We have learned that humans are most engaged, at least from an algorithm’s point of view, by rapid-fire emotions related to fight-or-flight responses and other high-stakes interactions. In enabling the privatization of the public square, Section 230 has inadvertently rendered impossible deliberation between citizens who are supposed to be equal before the law. Perverse incentives promote cranky speech, which effectively suppresses thoughtful speech.

And then there is the economic imbalance. Internet platforms that rely on Section 230 tend to harvest personal data for their business goals without appropriate compensation. Even when data ought to be protected or prohibited by copyright or some other method, Section 230 often effectively places the onus on the violated party through the requirement of takedown notices. That switch in the order of events related to liability is comparable to the difference between opt-in and opt-out in privacy. It might seem like a technicality, but it is actually a massive difference that produces substantial harms. For example, workers in information-related industries such as local news have seen stark declines in economic success and prestige. Section 230 makes a world of data dignity functionally impossible.

To date, content moderation has too often been beholden to the quest for attention and engagement, regularly disregarding the stated corporate terms of service. Rules are often bent to maximize engagement through inflammation, which can mean doing harm to personal and societal well-being. The excuse is that this is not censorship, but is it really not? Arbitrary rules, doxing practices, and cancel culture have led to something hard to distinguish from censorship for the sober and well-meaning. At the same time, the amplification of incendiary free speech for bad actors encourages mob rule. All of this takes place under Section 230’s liability shield, which effectively gives tech companies carte blanche for a short-sighted version of self-serving behavior. Disdain for these companies—which found a way to be more than carriers, and yet not publishers—is the only thing everyone in America seems to agree on now.

Trading a known for an unknown is always terrifying, especially for those with the most to lose. Since at least some of Section 230’s network effects were anticipated at its inception, it should have had a sunset clause. It did not. Rather than focusing exclusively on the disruption that axing 26 words would spawn, it is useful to consider potential positive effects. When we imagine a post-230 world, we discover something surprising: a world of hope and renewal worth inhabiting.

In one sense, it’s already happening. Certain companies are taking steps on their own, right now, toward a post-230 future. YouTube, for instance, is diligently building alternative income streams to advertising, and top creators are getting more options for earning. Together, these voluntary moves suggest a different, more publisher-like self-concept. YouTube is ready for the post-230 era, it would seem. (On the other hand, a company like X, which leans hard into 230, has been destroying its value with astonishing velocity.) Plus, there have always been exceptions to Section 230. For instance, if someone enters private information, there are laws to protect it in some cases. That means dating websites, say, have the option of charging fees instead of relying on a 230-style business model. The existence of these exceptions suggests that more examples would appear in a post-230 world.

Let’s return to speech. One difference between speech before and after the internet was that the scale of the internet “weaponized” some instances of speech that would not have been as significant before. An individual yelling threats at someone in passing, for instance, is quite different from a million people yelling threats. This type of amplified, stochastic harassment has become a constant feature of our times—chilling speech—and it is possible that in a post-230 world, platforms would be compelled to prevent it. It is sometimes imagined that there are only two choices: a world of viral harassment or a world of top-down smothering of speech. But there is a third option: a world of speech in which viral harassment is tamped down but ideas are not. Defining this middle option will require some time to sort out, but it is doable without 230, just as it is possible to define the limits of viral financial transactions to make Ponzi schemes illegal.

With this accomplished, content moderation for companies would be a vastly simpler proposition. Companies need only uphold the First Amendment, and the courts would finally develop the precedents and tests to help them do that, rather than the onus of moderation being entirely on companies alone. The United States has more than 200 years of First Amendment jurisprudence that establishes categories of less protected speech—obscenity, defamation, incitement, fighting words—to build upon, and Section 230 has effectively impeded its development for online expression. The perverse result has been the elevation of algorithms over constitutional law, effectively ceding judicial power.

When the jurisprudential dust has cleared, the United States would be exporting the democracy-promoting First Amendment to other countries rather than Section 230’s authoritarian-friendly liability shield and the sewer of least-common-denominator content that holds human attention but does not bring out the best in us. In a functional democracy, after all, the virtual public square should belong to everyone, so it is important that its conversations are those in which all voices can be heard. This can only happen with dignity for all, not in a brawl.

Section 230 perpetuates an illusion that today’s social media companies are common carriers like the phone companies that preceded them, but they are not. Unlike Ma Bell, they curate the content they transmit to users. We need a robust public conversation about what we, the people, want this space to look like, and what practices and guardrails are likely to strengthen the ties that bind us in common purpose as a democracy. Virality might come to be understood as an enemy of reason and human values. We can have culture and conversations without a mad race for total attention.

While Section 230 might have been considered more a target for reform rather than repeal prior to the advent of generative AI, it can no longer be so. Social media could be a business success even if its content was nonsense. AI cannot.

There have been suggestions that AI needs Section 230 because large language models train on data and will be better if that data is freely usable with no liabilities or encumbrances. This notion is incorrect. People want more from AI than entertainment. It is widely considered an important tool for productivity and scientific progress. An AI model is only as good as the data it is trained on; indeed, general data improves specialist results. The best AI will come out of a society that prioritizes quality communication. By quality communication, we do not mean deepfakes. We mean open and honest dialog that fosters understanding rather than vitriol, collaboration rather than polarization, and the pursuit of knowledge and human excellence rather than a race to the bottom of the brain stem.

The attention-grooming model fostered by Section 230 leads to stupendous quantities of poor-quality data. While an AI model can tolerate a significant amount of poor-quality data, there is a limit. It is unrealistic to imagine a society mediated by mostly terrible communication where that same society enjoys unmolested, high-quality AI. A society must seek quality as a whole, as a shared cultural value, in order to maximize the benefits of AI. Now is the best time for the tech business to mature and develop business models based on quality.

All of this might sound daunting, but we’ve been here before. When the US government said the American public owned the airwaves so that television broadcasting could be regulated, it put in place regulations that supported the common good. The internet affects everyone, so we must devise measures to ensure that our digital-age public discourse is of high quality and includes everyone. In the television era, the fairness doctrine laid that groundwork. A similar lens needs to be developed for the internet age.

Without Section 230, recommender algorithms and the virality they spark would be less likely to distort speech. It is sadly ironic that the very statute that delivered unfathomable success is today serving the interests of our enemies by compromising America’s superpower: our multinational, immigrant-powered constitutional democracy. The time has come to unleash the power of the First Amendment to promote human free speech by giving Section 230 the respectful burial it deserves.